RE: [wg-c] Re-bidding

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Over the years, in these debates, I've come to recognise a pattern.
Every time we come close to a compromise, the same players throw out
another road-block. Fist it was the FUD about technical limitation of
the DNS, then it was rampant anti-commercialism, now it is mandatory
re-bids. We are starting to thrash, folks.

We have at least two compromise solutions out there. I know because I
floated one of them. Can we start looking at them ... some time this
year? I counte over 67 messages, just for today, and I dare say that the
noise level has definitely gone up. We are losing focus.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Christopher Ambler
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 1999 2:46 PM
> To: wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: [wg-c] Re-bidding
>
>
> The arguments for automatic re-bidding of registries are actually very
> interesting.
>
> If they're true, I think we should also have automatic re-bidding of
> ccTLD registries, too.
>
> Also, the RIRs should be re-bid - they've in even MORE of a
> monopoly abuse position!
>
> While we're at it, I think DUNS should be re-bid every now and
> again. Imagine the chaos if they were to start charging exorbitant
> rates!
>
> We'd also better re-bid the NYSE - same argument.
>
> Can we move on to something real now?
>
> --
> Christopher Ambler
> Personal Opinion Only, of course
> This address belongs to a resident of the State of Washington
> who does not wish to receive any unsolicited commercial email
>